To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If this body were a debating society or we were involved in a high school forensics tournament and this bill were the topic of the tournament, I would be giddy with happiness every time one of my teams was given the negative side of the debate because there are so many reasons why this bill is a bad bill for policy reasons that it would almost be a rhetorical feast for even the most inexperienced and naive of my high school debaters.

Let me at least start by addressing three of the main problems with this particular bill.

First, this bill is very clearly an abuse of the Wild and Scenic River language. In 1968 when this bill was passed, its purpose was to inhibit dams and locks along rivers so that there could be a free flow of water on rustic rivers. The verb used in that act was ``preservation.'' The goal and purpose was preservation. Not rehabilitation, not restoration, certainly not economic advantage or economic development, but simply preservation. There are some elements of this particular river which have the qualities of a wild and scenic river, specifically the upper parts of the Taunton River. But the lower parts of the Taunton River, what is sometimes called segment 4, are the elements of this river which provide major problems. They are not and do not have the qualities of a wild and scenic river.

You've seen the pictures before. All you need to do is look at the pictures and you recognize this is not the design of a wild and scenic river as envisioned in the 1968 legislation. In fact, the only part of this river that's scenic is the graffiti that's found on the bridges and the human embankments that are part of this river system. The only thing that's wild about this river are the gangs that wrote this graffiti in the first place. These are not the qualities of which we are looking for. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you are floating down this river, it is not a wild and scenic if you can look over and see the local McDonald's right there on the bank.

What we also have is the understanding that this lower portion is supposed to be for recreation. We could believe it would be for recreation if you believe that tugboat races or barge surfing would be considered recreational activities. This is not the kind of material that one would want to find floating in a river for Boy Scout troops to try to paddle their canoes around or by.

This bill simply violates the concept of the wild and scenic river. The wild and scenic river was never intended to go through an industrial park. It was always intended to be water that was surrounded by public lands so that you could control and preserve both the water and the embankment of those public lands, not something that goes through a privatized residential/industrial park.

Also, if you look at section 1 of the act that it specifically talks not only about preservation of the water but the embankment as well, that actually in a real wild and scenic river, the National Park Service is required to take the embankment as well up to a quarter of a mile away and put that aside. Obviously, you can't do this because there is no public land on this lower Taunton River, although the National Park Service does have eminent domain power; so if you really wanted to create a true wild and scenic river, we could probably accomplish that deal if that was really what you are after.

This bill provides economic advantages to some elements but not to others. In 2002 the sponsor and other members of the Massachusetts delegation received an earmark to try to dredge this river, a fact which should disqualify it within the National Park Service criteria in the first place. Yet what it does now when we want to make this a wild and scenic river is simply take the law and turn it on its head. This bill gives current businesses disadvantages and some current businesses advantages, as is clearly illustrated in the newspaper articles that are coming from this area already where people are wanting to know what we do to see how it impacts, positively or negatively, their business operation. And that was never, never, never the intent of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Secondly, this is simply an abuse of the system, an abuse of power. In the year 2000, this Congress authorized a study of the Taunton River, the upper Taunton River. The authorization was for the upper Taunton River. The appropriation was to study the upper Taunton River. And yet mysteriously the National Park Service, a system that has millions of dollars of backlog, a system that has 37 studies still in backlog for Wild and Scenic River projects, a system that is always talking about how pressed they are for cash, volunteered in actual disregard to the legislative direction and legislative intent to study something never intended to be studied, never directed to be studied, and spent roughly $400,000 to do it, in total violation to the aspect of Congress and the requirements of Congress.

One low-level employee within the National Park Service felt in some way compelled to violate Federal law to study the wrong part of the river and to spend money illegally to study the wrong part of the river and then in his report had the audacity to say, well, this would be the most developed river we would ever have in this kind of status. When asked why he did that, his response was very simple to us in committee: He did what the river would choose to do if it could speak.

He said that twice. Not only do we have a mid-level bureaucrat who is talking to water, but he is now interpreting the will of water. And if in 2002 it wished to be dredged and in 2008 it wishes to be wild and scenic, this must be schizophrenic water at the same time.

Here is the problem: When the National Park Service came up with their report, they did not come up with one alternative. The sponsor has chosen one of the alternatives to make part of this bill. They call that the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative. But there were two other alternatives

which I compare to the rational and the intelligent alternatives that did not include the lower Taunton River. And, in fact, in this so- called second version that has now become part of this bill, the report said it was problematic that there is no precedent for this kind of action, no precedent for this kind of action, but it does meet political expectations.

Let me give a third reason, and yes indeed, this is an energy reason. The potential LNG port which would be put in Weaver's Cove would have been the largest taxpaying entity. And it was not agreed to to move on so far, but it has not been stopped. This project is still viable until the year 2015. This bill, if passed, is the only way to permanently make this a moot issue.

This language is the language of the report, which simply meant that the current proposal was to be rejected but that they encouraged an additional proposal to try and work out the situational problems to be encouraged. And they gave them the time to do that. The actual report encourages them to review this issue one more time. So it is true that this issue of an LNG port is still on the table. And the only way it can be permanently taken off the table is by passage of this type of bill.

Now why would that impact me because I live in Utah and I really don't care about this river all that much? It is simply because one of the members of the delegation came down on the floor this morning and said that last year 350,000, according to his numbers, individuals in the State of Massachusetts had to be given subsidies under LIHEAP, paid by all the taxpayers of the Nation, because they did not have the ability to handle the energy crisis within their State and that, indeed, heat was not something that was negotiable. However, the problem is, why don't we simply solve the problem by providing the energy there so that you don't have to tell the citizens of Massachusetts to freeze in the dark but solve the problem yourselves?

There was an interesting discussion on the floor during the rule which the gentleman, Mr. Hastings of Washington, was criticized for not having LNG ports in his home State. I wish to simply respond that it was a factual accuracy that has total irrelevance to the issue, because Washington State does not need LNG ports. It has gas pipelines. The entire West is provided by gas pipelines that do not reach to the eastern coast. The only way Massachusetts can step up and solve their own problem is by having not fewer but more LNG ports. That is the only option that is left to them. And this bill does inhibit that particular option.

Now with that are only three of the many reasons why this bill should not be passed, why this bill is poor public policy, why this bill does abuse the statute and change the meaning of the words that were intended for a wild and scenic river, why this bill does disrespect to this body and how we decided to try and do this study in the first place by ignoring the will of Congress and ignoring the authorization and appropriation of Congress and going off on some other particular way. And it does stop any potential improvements of an LNG port on this river which is desperately needed in that part of the country.

Those are only three of the possible reasons. There are others. I'm sure we will hear from those others as this discussion continues on.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Massachusetts standing up to defend his constituency. It is the right thing to do. It is the proper thing for him to do. It is his job and purpose. But once again, I want him to focus in on the reality of the situation, which is not the quality of the individuals in Massachusetts. It is simply the issue at hand. This, by the way, is that same battleship--assuming there should be a battleship in a wild and scenic river zone--this is the same battleship from the other angle which is decidedly less pristine and much more urbanized.

But the issue at hand that the gentlemen on the other side need to deal with is that the purpose of the act is for preservation, not rehabilitation, not for economic development, which are the very words that were just used. That is not what the Wild and Scenic River Act was ever intended to do. And that is what is going to be done in this particular bill. That is why we are abusing the vocabulary of the Wild and Scenic River Act. And we must focus back in on what we are doing. Indeed, the proposed LNG port is in an existing brownfield, zoned for maritime industrial use. But the issue is for what purpose are the verbs and the nouns in the Wild and Scenic River Act supposed to be implied? And does it apply to the lower Taunton? And the answer is simply ``no.'' It doesn't meet the definition.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, unless, Mr. Chairman, you would like us to reserve and then come back.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate once again the comments that have been made here. I appreciate the defense of constituencies. I appreciate that there is a difference between gasoline that goes in a car and gasoline that heats a home, and LIHEAP does deal with gas that does heat homes.

But once again, the issue is not the same. I want to focus on the issue. The beautiful picture you had here of the park does not qualify for the purpose of a wild and scenic river designation. That is why under the law, you are supposed to take a quarter mile on either side of the river and stop everything from that area. It is already developed. Development does not qualify even under the concept of recreation under the letter of the law.

This bill is bad because the study itself violated the law. Congress told the National Park Service to study the upper river and paid for a study of the upper river which has legitimate merits to it, and instead they studied the lower river in violation of the congressional directive.

Once they wrote their report, they still said it was problematic. There is no precedent for the lower river. It is still the problem of the details of what the river is supposed to be.

The department still recommends not doing this. The National Park Service recommends not doing this until the entire study has been totally completed. So once again we are back to this issue of what does it mean to have a wild and scenic designation?

The upper Taunton River has those qualities. The lower Taunton River does not because the purpose is for preservation, not for economic development, not for creating more urban parks, not for changing the landscape on the sides. It is for the purpose of preserving a river in its native state. That was the purpose of, and that is the intent, and there has never been a proposal to this date that is this far afield from the purpose of the 1968 act. Never. That is why there is no precedent ever for this type of action. That's why this bill should not go forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Once again I appreciate the comments from the gentleman, and I would like once again to try and focus on what is indeed the issue. The State of Rhode Island, the State of Massachusetts do, indeed, have coastal zone management acts in which they get Federal money to help maintain the quality of their coastal zones and rivers. The fact that they are cool rivers running in urban areas is wonderful. You can do it, it's great, but not under the definition of this act.

When the gentleman from Rhode Island says you want to put it back to the way it were, it disqualifies it from the concept of preservation of existing facilities and preservation of existing embankments. That's why you have struck too far when you go into the lower Taunton River.

Mr. Chairman, I have letters in opposition to this bill from the Shipbuilders Council of America, as well as from three companies who actually do business on the lower Taunton River who are worried about the kind of economic disadvantage they may be facing that I would like to be placed in the Record.

Shipbuilders Council of America,

Washington, DC, October 29, 2007.

Hon. Bob Bishop,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and

Public Lands, Natural Resources Committee, 1329 Longworth

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Grijalva: I am writing to express the

opposition of the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) to

H.R. 415, legislation to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

(WSRA) to designate segments of the Taunton River as a

component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Specifically, SCA is strongly opposed to the inclusion under

the WRSA of the Lower Taunton River (Segment 4).

The Lower Taunton River does not meet designation criteria

for inclusion in the WSRA. The WSRA requires that a river be

``free flowing'' defined as ``existing or flowing in a

natural condition without impoundment, diversion,

straightening, rip-rapping, or other modifications of the

waterway''. There is today significant industrialization

along Segment 4 of the Taunton River including bridges, a

power plant, sewage plants, marinas and shipyards, and

granite bulkheads. In addition, this portion of the Taunton

has been federally dredged for more than 125 years.

The SCA does not oppose designation under the WSRA of the

upper portions of the Taunton River. However, inclusion of

the Lower Taunton will harm existing businesses and

jeopardize crucial industrial jobs.

SCA is the national association representing U.S.

commercial shipyards. SCA represents approximately 40

shipyard companies that own and operate more than 100

shipyards on all three U.S. coasts, the Great Lakes and

Hawaii. SCA member yards employ more than 30,000 shipyard

workers. Our companies build, repair and maintain America's

commercial fleet as well as small and mid-sized vessels for

the U.S. military and other government agencies. SCA member

yards also repair and maintain Navy combatant ships.

Sincerely,

Allen Walker,

President.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts, his views may have evolved. The law has not. We are a nation of laws, not what we wish it to be, but what the law is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I will be happy to close when you are ready.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate once again the discussion that we have had here today.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, who is the chairman of a very important committee, does a great job, charming, witty, one of the funniest Members we have in Congress, actually said what my close was going to be. Someone once asked me, why do I care about this? I'm from Utah. I don't care about this river in Massachusetts.

And you're right. I really don't. I didn't get involved in this issue by choice. The gentleman introduced a bill that had to come to my committee.

But the reason that I do care is because exactly what the gentleman from Massachusetts said. We are attempting, in a vote, by a majority vote, to change the definition of law.

When I was in college, I had a professor that told me that all those men that went to the Constitutional Convention had baggage that they took, which meant they had a common educational, classic educational system. They understood what they were talking about. They went back to the concepts of Aristotle, who loved to make

definitions of everything. He said government was of the one, the few, and the many, and it could be either good or bad depending upon the attitude of those who were empowered to govern.

Government that was good is a government where the people, the leaders of that government, cared about the individuals and were self- sacrificing. Government that was bad is where the people didn't care and they tried to make things for themselves.

Then he gave definitions to that. So a government of one that was good was a monarchy, called a monarch back then, that's positive. Government of one that was bad was a tyranny. It is no coincidence that Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, of all the terms he could use to describe King George called him a tyrant, because it harkened back to their common understanding of classical literature and everything that Aristotle wrote.

The government of the many that was good, he called a polity. The government of the many that was bad, bad intentions, bad mindset, he called a democracy.

That's one of the reasons why we very seldom used the term ``democracy'' for the first 150-plus years of this country. The idea was that the worst form of government is one in which by a majority vote you can either take property from someone else and redistribute it or you can change the definition of the law--by a majority vote.

And that's why I object to this bill, because that is exactly what we are trying to do. The language of the original act is still clear and has not been changed. The language is clear, and that's why the Park Service did say that this proposal for the lower Taunton is without precedent, that it is problematic, that it does have its problems, because the law and the words of the law need to have a meaning. The law gives us guidelines. It gives us parameters. It protects the minority at the same time it directs the majority.

It's just like if we ever come to a point of time where by a majority vote we can come in here and change the meaning of the law, we have moved to the time where we are back with Petrucchio and Bianca, where the sun is the moon and night is day and by a majority vote we can accomplish it, and that is why I am so opposed to this bill because it is exactly what the gentleman said and exactly what we are doing.

By a majority vote, we are going to change the definition of wild and scenic rivers. By a majority vote. So I really don't care if you want to do this, if it's nice, if it enhances the attitude of any kind of urban area, it is not explicit with the letter of the law and with the spirit of the law, with the understanding of the law, which is why you are supposed to take a quarter mile of an embankment on either side of the designation and keep it free from development, for preservation purposes, not economic discovery and not economic development.

I have great concerns, and I have expressed this many times, with the process that we have. At no time in the debate on this floor have we had more than perhaps a half dozen Members who have heard the debate and participated in it, perhaps a larger number are listening, but what will soon happen is we will call for the vote on this bill, and through those doors will come 300 Members who have not heard the debate and do not understand the issue of this bill. They will look up on the screen and say, it's an issue, it's a bill for Mr. Frank, and they will say, I like him. He may be of my party. I'll vote for him. He's an influential chairman. I'll support him. He is a very nice person. He is a very funny person. He is probably the best debater we have on the floor, and I'll vote for it.

But that is not the reason, and that is not a rationale for changing law by vote instead of changing the words. Words have meaning.

And if we ever deny that words have meaning, we no longer have the rule of law. All we have is what Aristotle warned and threatened and criticized that our attitude is going to be what drives us in the future, not what we should do, but what we want to do at the time.

So, yes, it is important what the 1968 bill says. Yes, it is important. Yes, the upper Taunton River has all the qualities for which the gentleman wants. And, yes, the lower Taunton River does not. I don't care whether you are talking about LNG ports or not, it doesn't meet the qualifications of a wild and scenic river.

Until we change the law, we should not, by a simple majority vote on this bill, try and change the definitions of those words. That is why I, from Utah, care about this river.

Because if we can change the meaning of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by this vote, there is no river in America that is not in danger of being made wild and scenic if you have enough votes to do it. There is no law that can stand if you have enough votes to do it, which is why this is supposed to be a republic, why the words have meaning and the words of the law are significant and important.

That's why I beseech the handful of Members of this floor who actually are listening to this debate to please understand the rudiments of this debate and the significant issue that we are doing right here. That's why we are making this significant. That's why we are putting this. That's why I am opposed to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Once again, I appreciate the discussion we have had on this bill. I think that is perfunctory. We have to say that. But let's once again make common the facts of this particular bill.

The Department, the National Park Service, has not supported this bill. They have asked that we refrain from it until the study is final. They have also, though, in that study, given options, three different options of what to do with this river. This bill happens to take the worst of the options, an option that has no precedent, an option that is problematic.

My amendment makes this a legitimate bill. The area to which I object, the area that does not meet the standards of a wild and scenic river, those areas I am asking to be removed. The Upper Taunton River, that is the area this Congress, in the Year 2000, mandated the study and paid for a study, and that what the study should have done, has those wild and scenic qualifications that match the law.

That is my amendment, to remove the offending sections of this bill and limit just to those which meet the meaning of the words in the law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me continue to reserve until we are done.

I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Massachusetts is.

I appreciate that. And to be honest, I anticipated going first in the closing of this, so the gentleman from Massachusetts could have had the last word. So I will try and be kind with that.

But to be very honest with you, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter how many property owners may or may not object to it. Under our constitutional system of laws, if there are three people with property rights, they must be respected. It doesn't matter how many dislike it. They must be respected.

The gentleman has very nice people in his district. I am positive. Look who they elected. But that is not the issue. The issue is the language of the law. The language in section 16 talks about free- flowing rivers, natural waterways, existing and flowing in a natural condition. There should not be low dams, diversion works or other minor structures at the time the river is proposed.

This ain't minor structures. This is a large urban development. It does not meet the definition of those terms. We say it over and over again.

It is not the House that is denying the constituents the right to have this designation. The State of Massachusetts could do the same thing if you just used local ordinances and State authority. It is not the House that will be denying them. It is the law that denies them. It is the law that does not allow this lower river to meet definition of wild and scenic rivers. Period.

Pass the amendment, and I can easily and happily support the bill because if you pass the amendment, the parts that do qualify as wild and scenic rivers will be included as wild and scenic rivers, and the parts that do not qualify will be exempt.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though to be honest, I'm not in opposition to this amendment.

The words of this amendment are hauntingly familiar. As Yogi Berra would say, ``It's deja vu all over again,'' but I don't like to use cliches that are that old. However, this amendment is a wonderful, positive, good amendment. It's been mine up until the last couple of bills.

I like this amendment. I am proud that the gentleman from North Carolina has seen conversion to this point of view. To be honest, in our committee, on H.R. 1528, this same amendment, you voted against. I'm happy for your conversion. I welcome you over to the side of truth, right, and justice and where words have meaning.

For that reason, we are more than happy to accept this amendment. We will be supportive of this amendment. It's the right thing to do. It's the positive thing to do. It's brilliant verbiage because, to be honest, we wrote it a long time ago.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Pearce's designee, I offer amendment No. 3 made in order under the rule.

Thank you, sir. If I had known we were having a vote on the last one, I might not have fished for the first one.

It's a wonderful opportunity for me to introduce this particular amendment from the gentleman of New Mexico who spends so much time in this area and understands it so well. We're facing, obviously, an energy crisis in the United States, and we do have a dearth of solutions that have been forthcoming in this particular body. And we have repeatedly passed legislation that actually has, over the last 30 years, restricted access, limited our resources.

This amendment is once again simple. It calls upon the Secretary of Interior to provide us the full accounting of the resources this bill may take away from the American people. Simply, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and private industry, if it remains, shall complete and submit a report accounting for the energy resources withdrawn from future development by designation of this land and waters included in the Taunton River bill. Specifically, the report shall identify, among other sources, the amount of geothermal, wind, solar, biomass energy and any impact on electrical transmission.

The amendment is simple. If Congress is acting to take energy resources away from the people, we should know if there is a true impact by these actions.

I would urge your support of Mr. Pearce's well-thought-out and significant amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest a wise choice of action, and I will yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, kind of.

I think the other side of the aisle will be happy to know that this amendment does nothing to prevent a proposed LNG port in the Taunton River. The legislation does, but the amendment does not. I'm not really sure exactly what the amendment does. About the most you can say is it doesn't appear to do anything negative, and for that purpose I will be happy to support this amendment, because at least it recognizes that energy is important, and that's an excellent first step. A curious one, I admit, but an excellent first step, especially if it's accepted by those who are supporting the underlying legislation without the first Bishop amendment to be added to it.

It is curious also to understand what domestically produced energy source will come in this particular area unless maybe you actually do have the Park Service use their eminent domain power and actually condemn all of the land a quarter mile from either side of the river in the way a real wild and scenic river should be done. But let's see what happens.

An LNG port, if it was actually produced there, would be able within 3 years, according to best estimates, to reduce the amount of energy needs for the people that live in this area by 10 percent or more, just from this one port. But the issue at hand is not domestically produced energy because an LNG port does not bring in domestically produced energy. It's all coming from abroad.

The countries that produce LNG are Australia, Trinidad, Malaysia, Algeria, Nigeria, Oman, Brunei, Qatar, with other developments in Norway, Venezuela, Egypt, Bolivia, Peru, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Russia.

It is true that some is produced in Alaska, which I don't know if the gentlelady actually accepts that as part of the United States, but that doesn't go all the way around to the east coast. That stays up here in the West.

That's the issue. So I accept this amendment, but we're actually talking not about domestic production. The LNG port was about foreign production coming in to the country, but because it at least addresses the issue that energy is important, I'm happy to accept it.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1339 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1339.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1339 provides for the consideration of H.R. 415, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

This structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order four amendments which are printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes, and the rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying legislation. Introduced by my colleague from Massachusetts, Chairman Barney Frank, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 415.

This legislation would designate portions of the Taunton River in Massachusetts as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. It is important to note that this legislation has support from every House member from Massachusetts and Rhode Island and from every government of the affected communities along the river.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this designation only affects three congressional districts in Massachusetts and two in Rhode Island. It does not impact any other State in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the Taunton River fully qualifies for and deserves this designation. As determined by the National Park Service, and I repeat, as determined by the National Park Service ``the Taunton River is eligible for wild and scenic designation based on its free flowing condition and the presence of outstandingly remarkable natural and cultural resource values.''

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that this designation is distinct for different segments along the Taunton. Two segments of the river would be designated ``scenic'' and two as ``recreational.''

Now some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have suggested that the Taunton isn't scenic enough or that it's too urban for this designation. One of my colleagues even went so far as to say that the only thing scenic about this area is the graffiti on the bridges. Mr. Speaker, I find that statement not just wrong-headed but deeply offensive to the people that I represent. That kind of elitism serves no purpose and has no role in this debate.

I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who believe that the Taunton River doesn't meet the right criteria for this designation to actually pay attention to what those criteria are. The Taunton River is the longest undammed coastal river in New England. It is home to over 150 species of birds, 45 species of fish and 360 plant species. It is the largest contributor of fresh water to Narragansett Bay. And its shoreline provides for a wide variety of recreational opportunities. For the communities of Fall River, Somerset and the others along the Taunton, this designation will support the economic development plans within the area. In my district, the Fall River portion of the river, the ``recreational'' designation complements the city's plan for waterfront revitalization, which includes a marina and a boardwalk.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to address the baseless claim that this legislation is some sort of end around to prevent energy development in Massachusetts. This is an argument cooked up by one particular energy company that wanted to build a liquefied natural gas facility within a stone's throw of people's homes. This company has even purchased full- page newspaper ads in an ill-conceived lobbying campaign. Sadly, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have bought into their false argument hook, line and sinker.

First off, efforts to designation the Taunton began well before any proposal for a liquefied natural gas plant was announced. My mentor, Congressman Joe Moakley, filed legislation to study the river's designation in 1999, while the proposal for LNG was made public 3 years later in 2002. Secondly, this legislation is based on a study compiled by President Bush's National Park Service between 2000 and 2002.

And finally, this LNG plant proposal has been roundly rejected by the United States Coast Guard, the United States Navy, and the Commerce Department, due to overwhelming navigational suitability, environmental issues and maritime safety concerns. In other words, there is nothing this legislation can do that hasn't already been done by the people we task to keep our waterways safe.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has never been about stopping LNG or energy production. In fact, by denying the communities and the Taunton River this designation, we further hinder their ability to utilize the river as a catalyst for economic development. This bill is about protecting the natural and cultural resources of the people who live along the Taunton River. It's about telling the people of southeastern Massachusetts that their environment, their heritage, their recreational opportunities and their economic development matter too.

I very much look forward to this debate. And I am eager to hear what my friends on the other side of the aisle have to say about this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I have great respect for the gentleman from Washington State. But listening to his remarks, it makes me sad that this Chamber, this Congress, has kind of disintegrated to a point where there seems to be no collegiality and no kind of honest debate about what the facts are here.

I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for has question. I don't recall Mr. Frank's remarks verbatim. I am happy to look at the transcript. I did not say that. Let me respond here. And maybe the gentleman didn't hear my opening statement. But the Taunton River is eligible for a wild and scenic designation. But also part of it is eligible based on ``recreational.'' That is the word that the Bush administration's National Park Service has said is appropriate. Now, I very rarely agree with the Bush administration on anything. And I'm sorry the gentleman disagrees with the Bush administration on this. But what I find particularly cynical is the photograph that the gentleman just held up which is the exact photograph that this big-moneyed energy company published as part of an ad in a number of newspapers.

It is a photograph of the Taunton River. But the interesting thing about that photograph is the angle at which it has been taken. The fact of the matter is that this photograph that this big-moneyed energy company that my friend on the Republican side has held up is saying that this will be part of the, this area will be included in the designation which seeks to prove I think how inappropriate it has become because this industry has actually manipulated this photograph. But in fact much of that photograph is of a park.

You will note in the picture a World War II battleship. That is the USS Massachusetts. And let me show you it is no part of any industrial use today. It's part of a recreational area. The battleship is the centerpiece of a very important urban park called the Heritage Park in the city of Fall River. And there is a great deal of open space that is shielded cleverly, very cleverly in that photograph that was paid for by a big-moneyed energy company. On the opposite side of that river are boat ramps and houses that go right to the river for recreational purposes. And it's part of my district.

Now the gentleman maybe has a bias against providing working class people who live in urban areas any benefits from any kind of environmental designation. I disagree with him if that is his opinion. But he mentioned that the purpose of all of this was, in fact, to prevent an LNG site facility from being built in the middle of Fall River.

Let me put this out there so my colleagues understand this. There are currently only eight LNG terminals in the United States of America. Of those eight, Massachusetts currently has two LNG terminals in operation with a third one that has been approved by FERC. Massachusetts is the only State to permit not one, but two new LNG import facilities this decade in this country. Each of these facilities is authorized to double its output capacity.

I will yield after I finish my statement.

Reclaiming my time, the bottom line is we in Massachusetts realize the need for these LNG import facilities.

And I would like to point out to the gentleman from Washington, and if my geography is correct, Washington is still a coastal State, unless that has changed, but that his State has no LNG terminal in operation, under construction, or even proposed.

So when he implies that somehow the Massachusetts delegation is not stepping up to the plate in terms of making sure that not only New England but this Nation has energy, he is wrong. Massachusetts has been a leader on this.

Let me point out one other thing. This is not a Republican-Democrat issue with regard to the LNG facility and the Fall River. Mitt Romney, who the last time I checked was a Republican, and still is a Republican, was a leading opponent in the siting of the LNG facility in the middle of Fall River. In 2006, Governor Romney stated, ``Weaver's Cove and Fall River strike me personally as being an ill-advised site to receive LNG.'' Realizing that they were trying to site an LNG facility in a highly populated area, Governor Romney asserted, ``I don't like the idea of an LNG facility going into a populated area, not in the post-9/11 world.''

We in Massachusetts have worked with energy companies to try to site these LNG facilities safely offshore. The idea that you would site an LNG facility in an area where there are countless people within a 1- mile radius of this facility is crazy.

Richard Clarke, the terrorist expert said, ``This is a bad idea.'' Now that is one opinion. Another opinion is the U.S. Coast Guard said it is a bad idea. The U.S. Navy says it is a bad idea. The Commerce Department says it is a bad idea. You are the only one who says it is a good idea, you and a big moneyed energy company.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing all kinds of red herrings here, but understand one thing, this is not about energy. This is about whether or not a working class city, kind of the home base of the industrial revolution that is located on this river, can be designated as a wild and scenic area, whether or not the recreational aspects of this river can be recognized, whether or not we can afford this city of Fall River the benefits to help them use this river as a catalyst for economic environment.

It is too bad that this has become an elitist debate about well, no, you don't deserve it because this is a working class, urban area, home of the industrial revolution. You don't deserve that designation. I think that is wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous speaker, and I am confused because he doesn't address what we are talking about here which is the designation of the Taunton River as having a wild and scenic designation.

Again that photo that he held up, which my colleague from Washington State held up, which was a photo taken by a big moneyed special interest energy company, is inaccurate. I mean everything below the bridge seen in the middle of that picture is not covered by this bill.

Here is if you take a picture from the other side which actually is the part that we are talking about being covered, it is a much, much different picture. It doesn't fit into the strategy of this special interest big moneyed energy company, but the reality is you see a much different picture of what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to preserve.

If people want to have a debate on energy, fine. I would simply say Massachusetts is doing its part. We are actually moving forward on licensing more LNG facilities. We recognize the need to do our part. We are doing the right thing.

The objection to this site for that LNG facility is that it is in the middle of a densely populated area that when these ships had to go down the Taunton River, three bridges needed to be shut down. The Coast Guard said it was a bad idea. I'm sorry you know more than the Coast Guard, about I trust the Coast Guard to tell me about navigational matters more than I do any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The U.S. Navy complained about it. The U.S. Department of Commerce said it didn't make any sense.

So this is a smoke screen, and it really is an insult to the people who live in this area. These are hardworking people and they don't deserve to be a pawn in your political debate. So I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and support the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield to me?

That picture is inaccurate. You are holding up a picture that is inaccurate. What we are looking at there is not what is covered by this designation.

Mr. Speaker, we have all kinds of inaccurate statements being made here and inaccurate photos being shown here.

Let me repeat, as determined by the National Park Service, ``The Taunton River is eligible for wild and scenic designation based on its free-flowing condition and the presence of outstandingly remarkable, natural and cultural resource values.'' That is a quote from the National Park Service.

It is also important to note that this designation is distinct for different segments along the Taunton River. Two segments of the river would be designated as scenic and two as recreational. This is not something that Congressman Frank or myself came up with out of the blue. This is what the Bush administration National Park Service has concluded.

I mean, I trust the National Park Service to tell me whether or not something fits this designation or it doesn't fit this designation, more so than some of my colleagues who are trying to make this into a political football.

Again, I would show this picture which is a more accurate picture of what we are trying to protect. And I would also say again that what I find

particularly offensive about this debate is that the people who are trying to be denied the benefits of this designation are hardworking people from Fall River. These are people who work in factories. These are people who have really been an engine for the economic development of this country over the years. And they are working class people. All of a sudden we are told that somehow they don't deserve this kind of benefit from this designation. Talk about elitism.

The National Park Service says this is the right thing to do. The previous designation of the other part of the Taunton River, by the way, when my colleague Joe Moakley brought it up, was voice voted. Everybody here thought it was a good thing. Now because we are all into politics and it is the election season, people are looking for anything to try to make a political point.

Enough with the political posturing. Let's once in awhile do the right thing. Let's once in awhile listen to what the National Park Service has said on this issue. Let's do what the people of this community want. Let's help this community benefit from the economic development incentives that will come from this designation.

These are good people. This is a good community. I am proud to represent the people of Fall River. Congressman Frank is proud to represent the people of Fall River, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put the politics aside and do the right thing and vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

This is a photograph.

Yes, it looks so beautiful it looks almost like it has been painted, but it's a photograph.

Would the gentleman yield?

I would say first of all Massachusetts currently has two LNG terminals, and we have licensed another one. We are not opposed to LNG. We are doing our part.

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode here. This doesn't make any sense. None of this makes any sense.

First of all, I would say to the gentleman that we have just as many LNG facilities as you do in Louisiana. I would say to the gentleman that we are moving forward. We just licensed another LNG facility.

I don't know what he's talking about. It doesn't make any sense to me when you talk about we are trying to frustrate our efforts.

Let me also say to the gentleman, with regard to this particular site, the United States Navy opposed the LNG terminal in Fall River, as they indicated it would disrupt their operations in their nearby Newport, Rhode Island, base.

The Commerce Department, Commerce Secretary Gutierrez ruled that Fall River would be an inappropriate site, citing the negative impacts on the flow of commerce along the waterway and environmental concerns. The United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard.

Now you may be an expert on navigational issues, but I trust the Coast Guard more than I trust you on these issues. The Coast Guard has rejected the LNG plant in Fall River three times.

Captain Roy Nash, the head of the port of southeastern New England, found that the plan is ``unsuitable from a navigation safety perspective for the type, size and frequency of LNG marine traffic.''

So this site doesn't make any sense. So the State of Massachusetts said, but we want to do our part, so we have licensed another facility. So where are we frustrating attempts on energy?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

If I may reclaim my time, the U.S. Navy, the Commerce Department and the Coast Guard said this particular site is unsuitable. Oh, and by the way, here is another photo, not an artist rendition. It looks like it might be an artist. It looks, again, very picturesque, like it could have been done in oil colors. But this is another photo of what we are trying to protect.

Let me also say that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1969 does not discriminate between urban and rural. This bill is consistent with the law and recommended by the Bush administration's National Park Service.

I yield to the gentleman briefly.

I reclaim my time.

The gentleman obviously has not read the Coast Guard's recommendation on this issue. It is more than just about a bridge, and there are many bridges involved.

Again, I would say to the gentleman that the debate is not about an LNG facility, it's about whether or not this area deserves the designation that we are debating here today.

And I'm sorry, I understand it's a political year, it's an election year, and the people on the other side are just trying to make political points. It's just sad that they are doing so potentially at the expense of some good people in Fall River.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

There is a difference between the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, I should tell the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration's National Park Service has suggested that this is an appropriate designation. Maybe they were brainwashed, I don't know. But it is just sad that you have, on the other side, some on the other side, have tried to make this a political pawn in your election-year politics.

This is really sad, and it's unfortunate, again, that the potential losers on this could be the hardworking people of Fall River and Somerset and the people along the Taunton River. This, to me, makes sense. Again, the Coast Guard has been emphatic in their opposition to this. I am interested. It's fascinating to see some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim they know more than the United States Coast Guard. But when it comes to navigational and safety matters, I trust them.

But when it comes to designations, when it comes to parkland designations and wild and scenic designations and recreational designations, I am going to trust the Bush's administration's National Park Service more than some of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman that on the issue of energy, Massachusetts has twice as many LNG facilities as Georgia. I would suggest he go back and do his part to help provide more energy for our country.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides, please?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an editorial from the Fall River Herald News in support of this, in support of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, after that spin, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.

I will show more pictures. I will be the last one speaking on this side.

No, this is just a photograph. It is so beautiful it looks like art.

This is a photograph too. If you come up closer, you can see that it is a photograph.

That is correct.

I yield myself the balance of our time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that this debate has been somewhat unfortunate because it has been about everything but what the underlying bill is about. As determined by the National Park Service, let me quote again, ``The Taunton River is eligible for wild and scenic designation, based on its free flowing condition and the presence of outstandingly remarkable natural and cultural resource values.''

It is also important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this designation is distinct for different segments along the Taunton. Two segments of the river would be designated scenic, and two as recreational. By any measure, this should be a noncontroversial bill. This should be up under suspension. There should be relatively little debate on this. I mean, this is a no-brainer.

But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to make this about everything other than what this truly is about, whether or not this community of Fall River, and the community of Somerset and other communities along the Taunton River can benefit from this designation; whether or not they deserve to be able to get this legislation passed, and use this legislation to help be a catalyst for economic development.

This is a hard working city, Mr. Speaker, good people who have hit some tough economic times and who are desperately trying to rebuild the city by bringing the waterfront back, and this would help.

And this is not about whether or not a LNG facility should be there or not. I mean, I personally believe it should not be there. But the State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is doing its part. I mean, it is not like Massachusetts is saying no to any LNG facility. We have two up and running, and we have permitted another. So we are doing our part.

My friend from Washington State comes from a coastal State. There are no LNG facilities there. I implore him, help us out. Do your part. We are doing our part in Massachusetts, so this is not about us saying no to LNG. We favor LNG. We favor responsible siting of LNG and we are doing that. We have more LNG facilities than anybody else here. So we are doing our part. This is not about that. That is just a smoke screen. That is just a way to politicize an issue that shouldn't be politicized.

Now, the gentleman's suggestion that we need to start drilling in ANWR. The Republicans argue that opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an imperative for lowering gas prices, although their presidential candidate disagrees with them.

ANWR, Mr. Speaker, is a pristine wilderness, one of the most important onshore polar bear denning habitats in the Arctic. But right on the other side of Prudhoe Bay is the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. This area has been set aside for oil and gas exploration since the 1920s. And according to the U.S. geological survey, it contains more oil than ANWR, over 10 billion barrels of oil total. And it is open for leasing, Mr. Speaker. It is open for leasing. About 3 million acres have already been leased, and about 4 million more will be up for leasing later this year. But there have been only 25 test wells drilled there since the year 2000, and no companies are producing oil from NPRA yet.

So why would we need to open ANWR when we have this huge, untapped resource right next to the existing oil infrastructure in Alaska? And when a natural gas pipeline gets built, NPRA will be even more important. It holds over 60 trillion cubic feet of gas, nearly 16 times what ANWR holds.

The focus should be on the area that has the most oil and that is open for leasing that isn't a highly sensitive environmental area.

Mr. Speaker, we need an energy policy in this country. Unfortunately, from this White House we have gotten zero. Two oil men who are focused on nothing but what the oil companies want, and for too long a Congress that has been complicit in giving the oil companies what they want and not engaged in forward thinking policies to become energy independent. That needs to change.

But in the short-term, we also need to do something else because the fact of the matter is that there are citizens in our country right now who are paying record high gas prices, and we have a winter fast approaching where oil is going through the roof. We need relief now as well.

And that is why the President should do what the Speaker of the House has urged, and that is to tap in to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which is now filled at a record high, and put more gas and oil into our market to help stabilize and lower prices to make sure that people in the immediate term can get through these difficult times.

And then we need to embrace the energy policy and the energy principles that the Speaker, the Democratic majority has laid out of a way to get to energy independence, a way to drill in a sensible and an environmentally sensible way embracing alternatives, clean renewable sources of energy now and in the future.

But what they're proposing is not the way to go. It is a smokescreen. This debate has been politicized unnecessarily. This is all about political points. It is sad that on an issue so noncontroversial that it has come to that, but it has. That's the way they want to play, but it's the wrong way to do things around here.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1339 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2493) to amend the Clean

Air Act to provide for a reduction in the number of boutique

fuels, and for other purposes. All points of order against

the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and (2) an

amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by

Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which

shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable

for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

I yield back the remaining time I have, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this unfair rule and the underlying bill that makes a mockery of our Nation's Wild and Scenic River law.

First, this rule unfairly restricts Members from being able to offer amendments on the House floor. It's not the first time. It's a continuing pattern that we have seen over and over and over again. While every Democrat amendment filed with the Rules Committee was made in order, this rule allows only two out of 15 Republican amendments to be offered on the floor.

Seven attempts were made in the Rules Committee meeting on Monday to allow more amendments to be offered and to allow the House to consider the bill under an open rule allowing every Member of this body an opportunity to offer amendments on the House floor. Yet Democrats on the Rules Committee voted to block each and every attempt to allow a more open consideration of this bill.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may attempt to argue that some of the amendments weren't allowed for technical reasons, but those excuses ring hollow, Mr. Speaker, when they block every single attempt to allow for a more open debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the underlying bill to designate the Taunton River in Massachusetts as a wild and scenic river. Mr. Speaker, I openly admit that I have never visited this river myself. But as they say, ``a picture is worth a thousand words.'' Mr. Speaker, I could say nothing at all, but a picture does say a thousand words. Here I have a photograph with me of a portion of this river that is anything but wild and scenic.

Now, a simple glance at this photo would be enough for the House to just halt consideration of this legislation. Such a heavily developed and industrialized riverfront, with its multilane roadways, massive bridges and fuel storage tanks should disqualify, should disqualify this section of the river from being labeled wild and scenic.

Now it's argued that the reason this portion is included is because it's ``recreational.'' Mr. Speaker, honestly, it's hard to imagine that one would choose to go swimming or enjoy a peaceful canoe trip through this portion of the river. Quite simply, this portion of the river simply should not be afforded among the highest environmental protections possible under Federal law by designating it as a wild and scenic river. Mr. Speaker, quite bluntly, if this qualifies, if this qualifies as a wild and scenic river under the intent of that statute, then downtown Manhattan can be a national forest and Six Flags can be a national park.

This bill was scheduled to be considered by the House last week, yet it was postponed and rescheduled again for this week. This delay was caused when questions were raised that the true purpose of the bill, to name this river as wild and scenic, was to block a liquefied natural gas, or LNG, plant that has been proposed to be sited there. With record gas prices and high energy costs, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question, because passage of this bill would block the proposed LNG plant from ever being built.

Now my colleagues will argue, as they have already argued, that it already won't be built because the Coast Guard and others have raised objections and there are difficult hurdles under current law to overcome. However, the fundamental point is that today the law allows, the law allows today, for an LNG plant to be built if it can meet the necessary requirements. If it can't meet them right at this minute, then over time they may meet them. Or as the need for this energy becomes more apparent, then maybe the groundswell of support could allow this project to go forward. But if this law passes, Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible to build an LNG plant if this bill becomes law.

So, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the liberal leaders of this House block any effort to increase energy production right here in America, when gas prices are skyrocketing and Americans are hurting, now is not the time, is not the time, to make energy more difficult to get or more expensive.

Now the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Frank, testified before the Rules Committee on Monday. And Mr. McGovern in his remarks elaborated on this facility. He asked that the wishes of the

Massachusetts delegation be respected in naming this a wild and scenic river because it only applies to them in Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must note with irony, with irony, that a request coming from the Massachusetts delegation to respect their wishes on this river, this bill, in opposition to this LNG plant. The argument is that this is in their backyard. And yet, Mr. Speaker, members of the Massachusetts delegation have repeatedly, repeatedly, voted to oppose the wishes of the Alaska delegation. On what you might ask? Well specifically on Alaska's wishes to develop the oil reserves in ANWR. Mr. Speaker, the folks of Massachusetts may have big backyards. But they don't stretch thousands of miles away to Alaska.

We must recognize that if this industrial riverfront is permitted to be added to our Nation's wild and scenic rivers list, then truly all qualified rivers are diminished. This doesn't just affect Massachusetts. It affects every State in which there is a wild and scenic river. And in my home State of Washington, there are several.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

Well, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I tried to get him to yield when he was closing on the last bill, and he didn't. So when one talks about collegiality, one should start maybe with his own.

The point is, on this issue, is it not correct that in Rules Committee last night or the night before last when we were up there, you stated, and Mr. Frank stated, very specifically, that the House should respect the wishes of the Massachusetts delegation? And is it not true that the gentleman I think from Massachusetts and maybe other members of the Massachusetts delegation have done precisely the opposite as it relates to the wishes of the Alaska delegation?

Would the gentleman yield on that point just for clarification? Is the gentleman denying that this is not a photograph of the Taunton River?

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. WESTMORElAND. If you can look at the overall connection of the dots, this is just another one of those connections that shows that the majority party here is not going to give a clear up-or-down vote on increasing our oil production. It is going to continue to give the world and other countries the idea that we are going to be dependent on their foreign oil, and it is another example of: Well, we may have stretched the truth, and the people ate it up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I made the observation that passing this bill with what this picture shows--

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, when I asked the gentleman if this in fact was a picture of the Taunton River, the gentleman responded in the affirmative. Now there may be some changes, but he did say this is the Taunton River.

Now in my remarks I said that this diminishes the wild and scenic rivers that are in every place in this country. I said that there are several of them in my State. So I would just ask my colleagues this one simple question: Are we going to change the wild and scenic designation in this country to look like this? Or like this? This is a picture of the Klickitat River which is a wild and scenic designation in my State.

So if we are going to argue on the merits of wild and scenic, and making something that is urban like this as wild and scenic, we need to take into consideration what it historically has been, like the Klickitat River in my State.

That is a fundamental argument that is going on here today. There are others things that enter into it, and I would be more than happy to engage in that later in my remarks. But this is a fundamental difference, and what they are trying to do with this wild and scenic designation in an urban area compared to what has been done all across the country, including my home State of Washington.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Louisiana, I want to ask my friend from Massachusetts, and I will be happy to yield, that picture you have, I understand, is an artist's rendering of the river; is that correct?

It is a photograph?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

A lot has been said here just recently in the last exchange about plans. I have here a Boston Herald editorial called ``Cold Water on River Plan'' dated the 10th of July. I will read parts of it here:

``Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law rather creatively to further their own political aims. But the effort by U.S. Representative Barney Frank to transform a stretch of industrial riverfront in Fall River into a 'wild and scenic' resource is as shameless as it gets.''

They go on to say, ``It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial plan for the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal.''

I repeat once again, it's not people from other parts of the country talking about this. This is the Boston Globe. Or the Boston Herald.

[From the Boston Herald, July 10, 2008]

Cold Water on River Plan

Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law

rather creatively to further their own political aims. But

the effort by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank to transform a stretch

of industrial riverfront in Fall River into a ``wild and

scenic'' resource is as shameless as it gets.

Think ``A River Runs Through It'' and you can picture the

waterways that typically win ``wild and scenic'' designation.

But until Republicans intervened Frank was close to securing

that protected status for the Taunton River, limiting

development along the river and its ``immediate

environment.''

It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial plan for

the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal. A vote was

canceled yesterday, with Frank's office suggesting

Republicans wanted to make it a ``national issue.''

Well, they HAVE pointed out the irony of top Democratic

leaders (Sens. Kennedy and Kerry sponsored the bill in the

Senate) going all out to kill a plan that would ease the

delivery of natural gas to New England customers. . . .

Yes, environmentalists have been seeking a special

designation of the river for years. But if anyone believes it

would have gained this kind of momentum without Weaver's

Cove, well, we have some rusty container ships, fuel storage

tanks and warehouses along the Taunton River you might be

interested in.

The amusing thing is none of this seems necessary, given

that the Coast Guard has already rejected Weaver's Cove based

on quite ligitimate concerns about navigation and safety.

Guess you never can have enough insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have had a discussion in several areas on this project. Let me start with the most fundamental area, and that's the designation of wild and scenic. I pointed out, by making this river, which is industrial--and I might add, by the way, that the initial study called for studying the wild and scenic designation only on the upper stretches, as I understand, of the Taunton River, not the lower. But the final report came back, because, as the report said, if the river could talk, this would be what they wanted.

My goodness, we are listening to rivers. I would like to see that testimony to see what the river exactly said.

But at any rate, the bottom half was put into this wild and scenic designation.

As I pointed out, this is dramatically different, dramatically different from other wild and scenic designations across the country like the Klickitat River in my district. We talked about the issue of power and siting energy plants.

The gentleman from Louisiana, where there are a lot of natural gas areas, among other energy producers in that State, is certainly knowledgeable when it comes to that. There is a lively exchange on this.

Also, the Boston Herald, as I pointed out said, editorially, a week ago, less than a week ago, that this is a shameless way in order to take this issue off the table.

But here is the final component, and we really haven't talked about that yet, but I do want to talk about that.

I have an article here from The Herald News, which is the Fall River Herald News, and it's an article, the byline is by Mr. Will Richmond, it was written on the 15th of July, which was yesterday.

The headline that I see here is ``Scenic Designation Could Sink Riverfront Businesses.'' I bring that up in this context because my friend on the other side of the aisle was making the argument that this designation would be

good for the economy and so forth, presumably from the standpoint of tourism and so forth, but there are some businesses that are located right in this area, and they have some real doubts.

Let me read a couple of excerpts, if I may, out of this article:

``With the U.S. House of Representatives scheduled today to vote on the designation of the lower Taunton River as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, shipbuilders and other businesses located on the banks of the waterway are anxiously watching.

``The designation would hamper businesses, they say, possibly even leading to closures.''

Now before I go on, I would just say, how does that help the people that live in this area by this designation?

And I go on to quote, and I'm quoting a Mr. Donald Church, who is with Seaboats, Inc. He is the owner of Seaboats, Inc. And he says, ``It's all great to be touchy and feely, and it's great to protect the environment. But people in this city have got to have jobs.''

He goes on to say that because of this, there is some question, and it ``could easily lead to him selling his business,'' which, I might add, has a $5 million annual payroll.

On the other side of the river, there is another shipbuilder, Gladding-Hearn, and their president, Peter Duclos, and I hope I say that correctly, said, and I quote, ``Our feeling is that it's a stretch to be applying a noble environmental act on this part of the river,'' Duclos said. ``This area is industrial historically. Fall River wouldn't be here without a deep water part. I'm not sure this legislation is in the best interest of the businesses along the river.'' And he's talking about potentially adding 50 new jobs, but they have some real concerns about this designation.

Now, I might say, Mr. Speaker, from my experience in the western part of the United States, where we have these ``nice'' environmental designations, wild and scenic being among them, you have, our experience in the West has been, a restriction of use on these rivers, rather than an expansion. And this is precisely what these shipbuilder owners are saying with this potential designation on the industrial area of this river.

So we have three aspects to this, as I mentioned. We have the aspects of undermining what the intent was of wild and scenic designation as it was put in law to really protect wild and scenic. We have the issue of energy. That has been well discussed, especially when we have energy prices going up, and we have a potential here to locate an LNG plant. And then we have the issue of jobs in this area where there is concern in this area.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that, if for no other reason, it is a reason to defeat the rule, it is a reason, actually, to defeat the previous question so we can talk about energy; and I will be offering an amendment to that effect. But it is about defeating the rule so maybe the Rules Committee can go back, make an open rule and perfect this legislation to make it more palatable, not only to the Members of this House, but also to people that live in that area.

And, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have this inserted in the Record.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, how much time is on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from Massachusetts if he is prepared to close, if I close.

I just asked the gentleman is he acknowledging that the other was an artist's rendition? Is he acknowledging that then?

I am talking about the other one.

Mr. Speaker, I surmise from that that he is the last speaker on that side; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, with that then I will yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, instead of considering a bill to designate industrialized riverfronts as wild and scenic to block an LNG energy plant from ever being built, this Congress should be debating bills that result in more energy and more energy production within the United States. Instead of bills that could result in higher energy costs, like this one, Congress should be working to lower gas prices and decrease the cost of energy. America needs to produce more oil and gas and energy using our own abundant reserves.

It is time for the House to debate and vote on bills to open ANWR, our oceans and Federal lands to drilling. If we were to increase the supply of oil, then the price of oil will decrease. Instead of allowing these proposals to be given a fair vote, the liberal leaders of this House are bending over backwards to block ideas to produce more American-made energy. Today, every Representative will have a chance to break Speaker Pelosi's blockage against bills aimed at lowering gas prices, and they can do that, Mr. Speaker, by voting no on the previous question. By voting no, we can end this obstruction and we can get to work.

If the previous question is defeated, I will simply amend the rule to allow the House to consider H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act, which will reduce the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contributed to unaffordable gas prices. This is a commonsense bill that will help lower gas prices by ending government mandates and manipulation that increase the cost to everybody's pain at the pump.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can debate, in an open manner, the part of the energy crisis and solutions to the energy crisis that we face in this country.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by regretting the animus toward the people we represent that we've just heard. The gentleman from Utah said, ``Wild and scenic. The only thing wild about this are the gangs there.'' The city of Fall River, the gentleman has an amendment that would exempt from this bill the city of Fall River, Massachusetts, a city full of working people, many of them immigrants who became American citizens, and their descendants, from Portugal and elsewhere, people who worked in the garment industry and the textile industry, a city which has suffered economically the fate of de-industrialization.

Characterizing them and saying ``The only thing scenic about them is their graffiti, the only thing wild about them is their gangs,'' they don't deserve that denigration, no matter what political points people want to score. If you want to come after me, if you want to come after Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island or Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts, we'll deal with it. But please don't denigrate these hardworking people. Don't impute to them gang activity that doesn't exist. The gentleman who accused them of gang activity has no idea of what goes on there and he makes an inaccurate statement.

The only thing scenic is the graffiti? Is that not scenic? This is the Battleship Massachusetts. It's part of a national park. It's one of the few battleships that comes with a Patriot missile, because I got Raytheon to put it up there. It's a park, a park for patriotic people. Do you see any graffiti on the Battleship Massachusetts?

In fact, that is part of the problem here. Apparently we're told it's okay to have a wild and scenic river. And of course we're not saying it should be wild and scenic. We are talking about a part of the statute that says you can have recreation. And these are people who have decided that in part because they have lost their industrial base that they had for a variety of reasons, they will develop new economic activity that is based on their river.

By the way, one of the bridges that is talked about, one of these structures, we have gotten money to take down. Like a number of cities that walled themselves off from the river, Fall River has appreciated the great beauty and attractiveness of that waterfront. And they would like to tear it down.

But here is the issue. Is environmentalism only for suburbanites? Do working people who have found themselves in economic distress have no right to try and enhance the quality of their environment?

Let me have some more of those pictures down here. Let me have some more to show people what we are talking about. We are not talking about only what was pictured.

This is part of the area that would be banned from the bill under the gentleman from Utah's amendment. So is this. Part of it is Mr. McGovern's district. Part of it is my district. It impacts the other districts. Yes, it is not everywhere beautiful. These are people who haven't had the good fortune to live always in land that was so attractive. But they would like to try and improve their situation. They would like to be able to enhance the quality of their environment without being denigrated as gang members or graffitists. Yes, there are a few people who do graffiti. The overwhelming majority in every single community along this river on both sides has asked for this designation. It was begun by our late and beloved colleague Joe Moakley before anybody heard of LNG. By the way, on LNG, there is an LNG plant in the district of our colleague, Mr. Markey. We in the Massachusetts delegation overwhelmingly supported a second LNG plant just a little bit offshore, just north of Boston that has been approved. Many of us support a third one. It is not a case of rejecting LNG. And I notice that people on the other side, those who think Fall River is just full of graffiti artists and gang members and don't know that wonderful city and the decent, patriotic people who live there, they circulated an editorial from the Boston Herald saying this isn't needed. And the Herald editorial, the op-ed piece that they circulated, concluded by saying, of course, it's not necessary because the LNG plant is dead. It's not simply the current LNG plant that has been rejected. It was the Coast Guard saying that in that narrow waterway, with the bridges that have to be traversed, you can't do it.

Carlos Gutierrez said ``no,'' the Secretary of Commerce. I've got to say, I didn't know that I would be defending the Bush administration so much here. I know I will be defending them against the Republicans on the questions of the housing bill. But we were also told there was this terrible conspiracy with the Park Service under George Bush. I don't think the Interior Department

under President Bush was engaged in this kind of chicanery that has been imputed to them.

We are talking about the desire of people who live in an area that has some industrial activity, but some residential and recreational areas, who want to protect what they have and make it better. They have asked us, and we have worked with them, to tear down an elevated highway. We are working with them to enhance the quality of their environment in a way that will also improve things economically. Every Member of Congress whose district is remotely near here strongly supports this bill. Every city and town along the way supports this. Every elected legislator and local official supports it. For them to be told essentially that ``it's too gritty, it's too grubby, you aren't people who we had in mind when we talked about the beauties of the environment, you don't deserve this because you've had graffiti and some of you belong to gangs''--an inaccurate characterization of the whole city--to deny them that is I think a degree of cruelty, frankly, that I hope this House does not encompass.

I and others have tried very hard to take into account what other Members think about their districts. To repudiate what all of the Members of Congress, five of us very directly involved here, think would be important for this particular area because an LNG plant that has been rejected by the Department of Commerce and by the Coast Guard and cannot be resuscitated, might some day in 10 years be resuscitated, and by then we will have had enough other LNG plants that it wouldn't even have any demand probably, that these people should be told, just the 9 miles, conveniently, the city of Fall River, the urban area, the area of hardworking immigrants who became American citizens, that they should be told that they don't qualify for environmental protection is a decision that I hope this House would not make.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from West Virginia for the consideration they have given. It may in part be relevant that these are Members who themselves understand the desire of working people, of people who have lived in these kinds of areas, to get the same kind of consideration for their environmental needs as wealthy suburbanites.

I hope that the bill is passed without amendments that would cripple it.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just want to point out, this is a park that would be excluded. Behind it you do see a superstructure. It walls off the city. That is what Mr. McGovern and I have gotten money to take down, without regard to the wild and scenic, but we want to take this down and open up this waterfront even more. That is what you will deny us by killing this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I concede three business people out of this whole area opposed it. So we did not pass this by unanimous consent. Three people were there. Fortunately, my area that I represent is not the Senate. You don't need unanimous consent. If you get 98.9 percent, that's good enough.

What particularly puzzles me, though, is the gentleman from Utah apparently thinks that Congress in 1968 reached the ultimate in wisdom and that because something was passed in 1968 it can never be changed. We're not talking about interpreting the statute, we're talking about passing one. And, in fact, our views of the environment have evolved.

As my colleague from Rhode Island eloquently put it, the nature of the economy of New England has evolved. Back then it was a very industrial economy. We have lost that industrial base for reasons not, I think, largely the fault of the people there, and they are trying now to go in a new direction.

So here is where it is. If you were ever industrialized, according to the gentleman from Utah, that's it. The environment is not for you. He says, well, why doesn't the State do it? Probably because we are talking about navigable waterways, and as there are limits to what the State can impose on navigable waterways. This is a navigable waterway. There is Federal responsibility. So we are coming here to the Federal Government to empower the State. Every single community there. Governors. The previous Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, was for this. The current Governor is for it. But again the gentleman says, well, because it didn't meet this definition of 1968 you can never do it again.

We are talking about recreation, recreation for the people there, and, yes, we are saying that there is an act of Congress. We look at the 1968 act, we look at our current views of the environment, we look at the needs of the people, and this is the question. This isn't a test on what was in the minds of

people 40 years ago who passed the bill. We are the Congress. We are now passing the bill.

The gentleman's amendment excludes 9 miles, the City of Fall River, whom, again, he characterizes, as, well, the only thing that's wild there are the gangs, the only thing scenic is the graffiti. That is a very unfortunate thing to say about a city of hardworking people in which there are a number of very attractive and useful institutions and places.

But the question is, do the people who live in that 9 miles--by the way, that's on both sides of the river, and there is a less-developed town across that my colleague Mr. McGovern represents--are they to be denied the chance to maximize the quality of their environment? Are they to be denied this planning tool, overwhelmingly supported by the city, so that as we tear down this elevated highway, as they expand the open space, as they take advantage of the river, they can do it in a rational way.

The gentleman keeps saying, well, but what about 1968? What about 1968? Maybe it was a good year for wine.

But the notion that because a bill was passed in 1968, this Congress has lost the ability to make subsequent decisions, makes no sense.

We are asking you, all of us who represent the affected area, all of the elected officials in the area, the overwhelming majority of people in the area, give us this tool so that we can enhance the recreational character, improve our environment, and don't say that because we once had this industrialization, we don't qualify for environmental concerns.

Executive Department,

City of Fall River,

Fall River, MA, July 15, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Frank: I am writing to express my full

support of the bill you recently sponsored, which is

currently awaiting a vote by the House, to designate the

Taunton River as a Wild and Scenic River under the federal

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. As the Mayor of the City of Fall

River, which is situated on Mount Hope Bay at the mouth of

the Taunton River, I recognize the river's value and am

pleased to join you and other legislators (Representative

James McGovern and Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy) in

support of legislation that will protect this integral

resource from further development.

As a sign of Fall River's commitment the City Council of

Fall River passed a resolution on May 20, 2005, in support of

the recommendation for designation of the Taunton River as a

Wild and Scenic River. In addition, at that same time the

City Council endorsed the Taunton River Stewardship Plan

developed by the Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study

Committee.

Thank you for recognizing the Taunton River's remarkable

value and for introducing legislation that will protect it

from development and industrial use. The City of Fall River

appreciates and fully supports your advocacy efforts in this

matter.

Sincerely.

Robert Correia,

Mayor.

That is a most extraordinary misunderstanding of the law. Yes, there was a law in 1968. Guess what this will be if we pass it--a new law. The notion that a law passed in 1968 somehow defies this Congress of the ability to pass a subsequent law incorporating current judgment doesn't make any sense to me.

You're not in court here arguing. The question is, does this Congress have the right to take into account evolved views to amend the law? Yes, there is a law on the books. If the law on the books, I would say to the gentleman, covered this, we wouldn't need this law, but this is a law that we would pass. So the notion that there was a prior law really makes less sense than a lot of other things I have heard today, which says a lot.

I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

These are the portions of the river bank that would be excluded by the gentleman's amendment. These would not be protected. The historic park enshrining the battleship Massachusetts would not be protected.

The gentleman made an argument I found hard to follow. It was because the 1968 Act said one thing, it would be a violation of the rule of law to pass a law. I have never heard that. We are here in the House of Representatives debating a law. If it gets a majority and is passed by the Senate, never to be taken for granted, it will become an addition to the law. The notion that a law being passed somehow distorts the law is a grave error.

The gentleman talked about the will of the people. The overwhelming will of the people in this area is to have this designation. No, it is not wild and scenic in the dictionary definition. It is recreational, which is one of the provisions that the law calls for.

And the question is today, 40 years after the original passage of the law, do we, as a Democratically elected House--the gentleman will forgive me for using the word ``democratic'' affirmatively. Unlike Aristotle, I don't think ``democracy'' is a bad word. Do we have the right to say to urban dwellers, the people in the city of Fall River who are targeted by the gentleman's amendment, the people in the city of Fall River, an industrial area. They are the ones that are being told the environment is not for you. Environmental enhancement, the ability to use this law to get the planning right, you don't get that. You are not entitled to it because you have been an industrial area.

I don't think the House wants to deny the right to environmental improvement and enhancement to working people who live in an urban area.

I reserve the balance of my time.

While the gentleman from Utah is thinking of something to say, I will yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) such time as he may consume.

How much time do I have remaining?

I will close.

I appreciated the kind words the gentleman from Utah had to say about me. I only wish he would extend those courtesies to my constituents who have, I think, been unfairly denigrated.

And I again want to stress there was nothing inappropriate about 40 years later the Congress deciding, by a vote, this is no fiat here, to look at the law and say, we now believe that this is an appropriate designation. It is to say to an area that has been subjected to de- industrialization, you get the support of this planning mechanism, which is necessary because it is on a navigable waterway, so it can't be entirely done by State authorities. It is supported by all of the locally elected officials, overwhelmingly by the people there, by all of the Members of Congress nearby, by the four United States Senators who would be affected. You get this ability to enhance the quality of your life and, at the same time, to find, as my colleague from Rhode Island said, a new economic pattern. And that is engaging in self-help. We are trying to help them tear down an elevated highway that is a barrier to this river. There is a coordinated set of planning activities to improve it.

And I have to say, the gentleman, I think, has helped me prove the point. In his diligent search to defeat this bill, he came up with three people in the area who were against it. Well, I don't think three people in an area of hundreds of thousands gives you, even under Aristotle's definition, the right to impugn the legitimacy of this, particularly since we are following the regular order.

I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, please don't tell the people, the hardworking people of an industrial area who are trying to improve the quality of their lives for themselves and the lives of their children, don't tell them that this environmental designation stops where they live, and that they are to be, by a specific vote of the Congress of the United States, excluded from this set of benefits.

Mr. Speaker, first, let's note the nonseriousness of this. It says ``promptly.'' It kills the bill. If you want to vote against the bill, you can vote against the bill. This says ``promptly.'' If it were seriously intended to be a legislative act, it would have said ``forthwith.''

Beyond that, it is not simply about energy. The last two lines say ``nothing shall be used as a basis to restrict current and future business and economic activities.'' This is a license to do any business whatsoever. Now I know a couple of businesses down there that I didn't think the Republican Party would be all in favor of. They would love to have this. They will expand it and invite you down and give you a discount.

This isn't just about energy. First of all, it's about killing the bill. But what does it say? The gentleman from Arizona read the amendment we have adopted about energy. ``Nothing shall be used as a basis to restrict current and future business and economic activities or expansion of such activities.'' It is hardly about energy.

The LNG plant has been rejected twice by the Coast Guard and once by that radical environmentalist, the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, appointed by George Bush.

I'm about to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts. He and I represent hardworking people, working class people. Many of them are Portuguese immigrants and others who became American citizens who have lost their industrial base. They are trying to enhance the quality of their environment and at the same time offer an alternative economic mode.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, don't take it out on them. If we've got a political fight over energy, let's carry it out among the big boys and girls. Don't turn to these working people and say, do you know what? You're not classy enough. You don't deserve environmental protection. That is for the elite. That is for the wealthy.

I yield, finally, to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is asking the same unfounded inquiry repeatedly a violation of the House under dilatory tactics?

I thank my friend, the Republican Whip, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 415, a bill to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 5959, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009; H.R. 3999, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act; and, we may also consider important energy-related legislation.

In response, if the gentleman would yield.

It is the same bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There is an extensive letter to all of our colleagues from Congressmen Frank, McGovern, Kennedy, Langevin, and Lynch.

I don't want to read the whole letter; but responding to the points in question, I am looking at the letter to see whether or not--one of the points they make is that notwithstanding this bill there are several barriers to this proposal going forward, that is the LNG plant. Killing the bill that would provide environmental benefits to people of our districts would in no way save the LNG plant from the rejection it has already received. The point being, and I have not read the entire letter, but that there are other impediments apparently to moving forward on that LNG plant. As I say, it is a long letter, I haven't read it fully, but I do know that each one of the points that was raised in the article today have been responded to and therefore will be the subject of debate once the bill is considered.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes. As you know, we have been talking about, on both sides of the aisle, developing greater domestic supply from that which we have control over here in this country. I think both sides agree that that is an objective that ought to be pursued. The differences have been I think where that should be done at least in the short term, maybe not in the long term.

In the short term, it is our belief that there is very substantial areas available for further exploration and development of energy resources from our own country. As the gentleman may have heard me say on the floor earlier today, there is about 88 million acres that we believe is currently available for leasing that experts indicate are prime opportunities for finding, drilling, and producing energy for our country. We may well consider legislation which will try to accelerate, particularly in Alaska, where there is 23 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve area designated and approved by the Congress for drilling, where approximately 1 million acres of that has been currently let for lease but there are substantial millions of acres still available. So we may well have legislation which will direct the administration to accelerate the leases for that area and speed the development.

In addition, we may well include in that legislation the Use It Or Lose It bill, we had disagreements on whether that was appropriate, which essentially says to companies: Don't inventory large segments. If you are not going to use it, let's get it back and give it to some who may well use it at this point in time. Again, an opportunity to accelerate the exploration and securing of oil within our control here in this country.

In addition, that legislation I think will include a requirement that any oil petroleum products that are produced as a result of this legislation or as a result of these leaseholds being extended, that petroleum would need to be used

in the United States of America, not exported to Japan or to other nations.

You had in a piece of legislation that you had in 2005 a similar provision. I can't recall the phrase right now, but essentially requiring due diligent requirement as they proceeded with the leases to develop the energy. So we think our Use Or Lose It is, while not exactly what you include in your 2005 bill, certainly a similar objective of saying: You get the leases, let's develop the oil.

We will also be calling I think in that legislation, Mr. Whip, on the President to pursue finishing construction of the natural gas and the oil pipelines from Alaska as soon as possible. If that requires resources, for the administration to ask for those resources.

We share again a view that it is prudent for us to develop all of the lands that we currently have available. And pretty significant, again, I don't know whether you were there, but the 88 million acres essentially covers Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, and most of Maryland. So a pretty large area that is available now.

So we want to pursue that, but clearly want to see further exploration, further drilling, and further utilization of our own resources here in this country, all with the view of bringing prices down.

Now, we don't know specifically why prices have spiked so rapidly, but we are very concerned about it. As you have heard me say before, prices during the last 8 years of the nineties went from $1.06 to $1.46, about one nickel a year. Prices during the last 7\1/2\ years have spiked from that $1.46 to now $4.15 or so. All the energy policies that have been adopted have obviously been adopted in the last 7\1/2\ years with President Bush's signature. There is no energy bill that is passed without his signature. So that we believe that we have not been successful over the last 7\1/2\ years of getting an energy policy in place which has given us independence and provided for stable prices.

Both the President and proponents of the 2005 legislation, which I voted for, by the way, because I think we need to seek energy independence, but the proponents of that bill indicated 3 years ago that it would keep prices down and make sure that we had supply. That hasn't been the case. Obviously, that was not the intent of anybody who was for the bill that that wouldn't happen, but that is the legislation that we currently are looking at. We are developing that now and trying to write the language essentially with the objective of utilizing the 88 million acres that we currently have authorized on which to drill because we think that is the quickest way to proceed.

You mentioned H.R. 6. First of all, as you heard in my list, we are not contemplating adding that into this legislation that we might be considering. However, let me say this, very honestly. You and I both, I think every Member in this body very much supports the free market system. We have found it provides the greatest good for the greatest number throughout the world.

In 2005, you put incentives in the bill, $14 billion worth of tax breaks for oil companies. Oil was then, as you point out, about half of what it is bringing today at the pump. The free market system, in my view, is if you are getting a high price for your product, you try to produce more of it and you try to find more of it. The oil companies are earning the highest price that they have ever received in the history of the sale of oil. That ought to be the incentive, not taxpayers who are paying the highest price at the pump they have ever paid, also having to pay higher taxes because the oil companies are getting an incentive of $14 billion of tax cuts to incentivize what ought to be incentivized by the price that they are getting for their product.

I want to say further that the information I have, and I think you will find this interesting, is that Exxon made $40 billion in profits last year. I am informed $32 billion of that profit was spent to buy back stock. Not to do additional research, not to drill in America or any place else, but $32 billion to buy back their stock. Obviously that did have a very good effect on those stockholders who remained because their equity clearly went up. I do not criticize that, but I point it out because it was not spent either to produce more oil product, petroleum product, or to pursue alternative energy sources which we think is important which is what we will use the $14 billion in H.R. 6, whether it was hybrid cars, ethanol research, water, wind, hydroelectric, or from my perspective, nuclear.

Let me also say that I understand what you are saying, but when we talk about this 68 million or 88 million acres, let me give you this point. The oil and gas companies hold leases on these 68 million now, land and water.

They are not producing on these acreage, and 81 percent, according to experts, of the estimated oil and gas resources on Federal lands and the OCS are currently available for development in these reserves, and they are equal to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

So what we are saying and what we will say in this legislation is that you have about 14 years supply here for America if you would develop this 107 billion barrels of oil or 658 trillion feet of natural gas on the land or offshore that you currently have leases on.

So I think this is a good debate to have, and ultimately hopefully at some point in time we will get through the politics of this issue on both sides and we will get to a point where frankly we develop this.

But I will also tell my friend that if we focus only on petroleum, we will not serve your young son or my grandchildren--you are much younger than I am--or my grandchildren very well because I will tell you, and as you know, I have a great granddaughter. She is 18 months of age. When she is my age, petroleum will not be her major source of energy. We know that. Petroleum is a wasting resource. By that I mean it is a resource that is going to go away. We don't know how much is left. Experts don't know how much Saudi Arabia still has. But we need to pursue vigorously alternatives while at the same time, as you and I would agree, developing that 107 billion barrels that we have here in this country that are currently available for lease.

Frankly, if the companies tell us that they really can't produce from that, then maybe we ought to look at other sites as well. But certainly it seems to us, you ought to use what you have first; and if that doesn't work, we ought to go on to a second or third or fourth site.

I thank the gentleman for his tolerance in my taking that time.

Will my friend yield just on that?

I just want to say that I understand what you have just said. But, of course, they never did have that until the 2005 bill, or one of the tax bills that was passed around that time. Prior to that time, the manufacturers had that, as you observed, that's correct, but the oil companies were never included in it originally or for long periods of time. They were added just in the last 2005 or 2006 or 2004, I am not sure exactly which bill added it. So it is not as if that had been in place when the tax to which you refer, the incentive to which you refer, was originally included in the code.

That's under discussion. As I said, we're discussing the component parts of the bill. We haven't decided how that bill will come to the floor. But I will certainly look forward to discussing it with you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I cannot confirm, because I haven't seen the report on that, nor has the chairman told me that he made such an announcement. I did read an article in which he indicated that he thought that might be the case.

As you know, he tried to move the Labor-Health bill through to markup

through the full committee, and as you know, the ranking member moved to substitute the Interior bill rather than do the Labor-Health bill.

The chairman believed he was pursuing the regular order. I have never seen, in the 23 years that I served on the Appropriations Committee, one of the appropriations bills substituted for another one of the appropriations bills in the appropriations process.

So a lot of unusual things are happening, unfortunately. And we haven't been pursuing regular order. I lament that, personally. I think that we ought to do that.

I will say that last year, as you know, we passed every appropriations bill through the House of Representatives by the August break. We had some difficulty at the end doing that, but we got them all passed. And we passed them all in the year, in the calendar year that we were supposed to pass them, not in the fiscal year, in December. As you know in a number of years we didn't do that until the following year: nine one year, eight the other passed in January, the end of January or the middle of February, as I recall, 2 years. I forget whether it was 2004 and 2005 or 2005 and 2006.

So I share the gentlemen's concern. I think both sides share the concern that the appropriations process is not proceeding in the regular order. But I want to say to the gentleman that from my perspective, I have not concluded that we're not going to consider any appropriations bills on the floor.

Will my friend yield on that?

Thank you.

Senator Reid in the other body has made it pretty clear that he does not believe, again, given the failure to pursue regular order in the Senate, that he will be able to get any bills passed, the Senate appropriations bills.

So one of the factors under consideration by Mr. Obey is that if the Senate is not going to consider any bills, that because they cannot get the bills through the House and to the President--of course, the President sent down a number, said, If you go over that number, I'm going to veto all of the bills anyway. And we had real difficulty last year, as you know, with that happening. That's not happened in my career before. I don't mean that a President hasn't indicated he would veto, but there was always room to work on that.

But that is one of the complicating factors or two of the complicating factors: the President's position and the Senate's position as well.

But I think the major problem is that the regular order Mr. Obey did not feel was being pursued in the committee.

I would not agree with the gentleman. After all, we did pass the Iraq funding, we passed a very substantive supplemental, we passed a GI bill, we passed an unemployment insurance extension. We passed an energy bill last year signed by the President. I think much of what we passed in our '06 that was passed, that got through the Senate, was signed by the President and supported by a significant number of Republicans.

Furthermore, let me just remind you, and I'm sure you recall this, that we took 50 hours longer to do the appropriations bills last year than we did in 2006 when your side was in charge. And we had extensive debate. We had 10 open bills, open rules, and we had two rules at the end, because it was clear that we were having great difficulty getting our bills done in a time cramp. Even under those bills, we spent hours debating them. We spent 17 hours on the Homeland Security bill, for instance, and 12 hours on the Labor-Health bill on the floor.

I don't want to get too testy, and you and I are good friends.

But very frankly, it was not a process that we thought was very substantive last year, and every indication that we have received this year, it is not going to be very substantive this year when we consider appropriation bills.

Now, having said that, we didn't pursue the regular order on the Labor-Health bill. The gentleman is correct there are five bills which have passed, and I would reiterate that I have not yet, from my standpoint, concluded that we're not going to consider appropriation bills on the floor this year.

So I want to make it clear. I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Obey announced. There was an article that said I was supporting Mr. Obey's position. I went a little further. What I supported of Mr. Obey's position was that regular order was not being followed in the appropriations committee, not the representation that you say he made with reference to no bills coming to the floor.

I think he's correct that regular order is not being pursued, and very frankly--and I'm going to talk to you about that, talk to my friend about this, because I think it is unfortunate that we have come to this place where the consideration of these bills last year became very politicized, and this year the announcement clearly was very early on out of your conference or your retreat and subsequently that it wasn't going to be a very happy process this year. I don't mean an agreement process. No reason why there should be an agreement. But Mr. Obey has concerns that it would simply be impossible for him to get the bills through.